Fear turning to terror later

Today we have a new poll from TNS which puts support for the SNP in Scotland at 54%, with Labour dropping to 22%.  If reflected on 7th May, this could result in the SNP taking 57 out of the 59 seats available.  There is a major caveat to these figures, which is that that 29% of respondents were 'undecided', so there is no room for complacency by the SNP.

Jim Murphy and Ed Balls were in Glasgow attending an event for Labour activists at the Royal Concert Hall.  Needless to say the major topic was 'SNP BAD!'.  Mr Murphy said

It is the nationalists’ clear intention to pursue a second referendum sooner rather than later if they are given the opportunity. 

Well colour me shocked.  The SNP would like to have a second referendum?  My, they kept that quiet.  Oh wait, no they didn't.  Nicola Sturgeon has said that, while she will continue to work towards an independent Scotland, another referendum will only take place if there is a substantial change (such as England voting to leave the EU and Scotland voting to stay in) AND if the people of Scotland indicate they want another referendum by voting in a party that contains such a policy in their manifesto.

 Mr Murphy also said

They would consign Scotland to years of deepening divisions while the needs and priorities of working-class Scots are set aside for another day, another year or indeed another generation.

The latter half of that sentence just beggars belief.  Labour have had a majority of MPs in Scotland since 1959, and yet we still have some of the worst poverty in Europe in some areas of Scotland.  We have also had vast amounts of money wasted on vanity projects such as the Holyrood parliament building and the Edinburgh trams, all commissioned by Labour.   Meanwhile the SNP government in Edinburgh have implemented free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions and no tuition fees, all of which will help meet the needs of working-class Scots.  What have Labour to show for their time in office at Holyrood?

In general, Labour are fighting this general election as if it were the referendum, which is odd as they fought the referendum as if it were a general election.  They seem to be suffering from a 6-month lag.  Maybe they should reboot their connection to reality.

Joined up thinking

Yesterday morning in the Guardian we were treated to an article on 'how disillusionment with Labour has turned into raw rage'. In it we learnt that Jim Murphy has been sworn at, denounced as a traitor to Scotland and called a red Tory by three different people in Glasgow.  Apparently Scots are refusing to accept Labour literature on the doorstep, treating it as if it was toxic.  This is being portrayed by senior Labour figures as a rage which apparently borders on the irrational (because of course Scottish people refusing to vote Labour could only be explained by irrationality).  Heads are being scratched, meetings held, but still they cannot come up with an explanation.  What could it be?

Then in the afternoon the Guardian reports that, should Labour get into government at Westminster, they will call on Michael Heseltine to be an adviser to such a government.  Yes, that Michael Heseltine, the one who was a minister in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet.

I have a feeling there's a clue there, I just can't quite put my finger on it...

Kezia of the Fourth Form

Yesterday I was travelling into the city on a train.  Sitting on the other side of the of the corridor was a teenage schoolgirl with her phone glued to her ear, regaling whoever was on the other end of the conversation with all the latest drama in her life, including torrid romances, breakups and secret affairs.  One young lady in particular must have had her ears burning as her character was thoroughly assassinated, all in breathless sentences ending in the upward inflection known as uptalk, making every sentence almost a question.

Later in the day I was watching First Minister's Questions when Kezia Dugdale brought up the issue of Neil Hay and some Tweets that he made under an anonymous account which she claimed were a heinous example of trolling by a Nationalist.  When this was countered with examples of tweets from Ian Smart, a Labour MP,  Ms Dugdale claimed not to be aware of them despite the fact that she follows Mr Smart on Twitter.  Poor preparation there, Ms Dugdale.  It was an obvious comeback and one that should have been anticipated.

While listening to Ms Dugdale perorate at length, she reminded me of that schoolgirl on the train.  She speaks in the manner of a keen student reciting a speech which she has learnt off by heart.  The kind of pupil who is diligent and earnest but doesn't have that spark about her that makes teachers think of her as someone who will achieve great things.  Rather she is somewhere in the middle of the class, neither outstandingly good or bad. Compare and contrast with Nicola Sturgeon, who speaks fluently and with fire.

If Ms Dugdale wants to reach the upper echelons of politics I'd suggest that she needs coaching in how to be an effective speaker.  As it is, it's hard to take her seriously.

Don't you wish they would just DIE!

Today saw the launch of the SNP's manifesto for the upcoming Westminster elections at the Edinburgh International Climbing Arena (EICA), to a rousing reception from the assembled crowds and a distinctly unrapturous reception from the usual suspects.  No surprises there.

The manifesto itself addresses not only the Scottish electorate but also the wider UK electorate, giving them an idea of what the SNP can offer if they were to ally with Labour on a case-by-case basis.  The latter is, I think, what is scaring the living daylights out of the big two.

The only reason that Westminster allowed us to have a referendum is that they thought that the independence side would lose badly and that this would kill off the idea of Scotland leaving the UK for a very long time, if not forever.  In the event the independence side did lose, but not by a very large margin.  Since then the unionist side has constantly been telling Yes voters to accept the result.

Well, today, as the SNP manifesto proves, we have accepted the result.  We're still in the union, so we are damned well going to make sure we have a say.  Apparently, however, this is not what was supposed to happen.  The Yes alliance was supposed to slink away and Westminster would get back to business as usual.

This is, I think, the root of the hysteria we are seeing from the traditional parties on the subject of the SNP.  They don't like a politically active and engaged electorate, such as we are seeing in Scotland.  We're not playing by their rules, we're not pretending that austerity is the only way and we're not part of the gentlemen's agreements that seems to be how Westminster is run.  Far from slinking away we have become a thorn in their collective paw, and the resulting shake-up can only be good for democracy.

Playing catchup

Yesterday Jim Murphy launched Labour's Scottish manifesto, claiming that it was a reversion to old-school Labour.  He also made a rousing speech to party activists.  Must have been a fairly small venue then, since Labour are rather short of manpower on that front.  But I digress.

One of his major arguments was that Full Fiscal Autonomy(FFA) would be bad for Scotland.  People should

[t]hink about these new sources of income, the mansion tax, the bankers bonus tax. Full fiscal autonomy would stop all that money coming across the border.

That 50p top rate of tax - there are 16,000 people that would apply to in Scotland, but there are 300,000 people across the whole of the UK. Again that money would be stopped at the border.

 I think this shows how badly Mr Murphy and his campaign team have misread the mood in Scotland.

One of the epithets that was hurled with tedious regularity at Scots during the referendum campaign was that of 'subsidy junkies'.  It encapsulated Scotland as a nation of beggars sitting with their hands out for Westminster charity, as if as a nation we do nothing, pay no taxes and have no income of our own.  It's something that is still brought up in many a comment during the current election campaign.  And yet here we have Mr Murphy telling us that we should all be rubbing our hands with glee at the thought of all this extra tax money raised in England and being sent to Scotland.

It seems that Mr Murphy and his team think that Scottish nationalism is all about sticking it to the English, specifically the English upper classes.  That being the case, telling us that we will be taking money from them is bound to be a vote winner.

Except that's not what Scottish nationalism is about.  It may have been in the past, but not now.  Irvine Welsh has an interesting take on it.  He says

When I was growing up, [Scots’ consciousness] was that childish one: it’s the English’s fault. Then it changed in the 80s and 90s to the Renton thing: it’s our fault, the self-flagellating thing. Now it seems to have evolved into a healthy pragmatism that it doesn’t matter whose fault it is; the point is to get on with it and make it better. That’s been the evolution in my lifetime and it’s made it easier for people like me to get involved. Twenty years ago I would have been very anti-independence.

Sadly Mr Murphy seems to be stuck in the 70s and hasn't noticed the changes that have taken place while he has been away in Westminster.  We've moved on, but he and the Labour party in Scotland have not.

According to the latest polls Mr Murphy looks likely to lose his seat in East Renfrewshire in this election.  If that happens all he will have left is to try for First Minister in next year's Scottish general election.  Perhaps his new leisure time might allow him to catch up on developments in the past 30 years in Scotland.

The debate goes on

Last night there was yet another leaders debate on the BBC.  It proved to be much better than last week's efforts, due in no small part to the chairmanship abilities of David Dimbleby, who kept control of the participants most of the time.  At least on this occasion you could hear what the various participants had to say on a particular topic without it continually descending into a stairheid rammy.  Which is not to say there weren't any, but they were kept to a minimum.

The person who benefited least from this was Nigel Farage, whose odious views were heard loud and clear.  This was not to his advantage.  As usual his solution to everything was (a) leave the EU and (b) stop immigration.  Inside Mr Farage's head one imagines that there is continual Union Jack waving, forelock tugging and everyone knowing their place.  This explains his frequent, if geographically-challenged, references to all things north of Hadrian's Wall as a shorthand for 'Scottish'.  We Scots have introduced a sour note into his fantasy by holding a referendum on independence.  The mere thought of anyone challenging his 1950s theme park is simply unbearable, hence the desire to punish the Scots as demonstrated in the Ukip manifesto.  How dare we question the greatest nation in the world ever!  Cognitive dissonance rules for Mr Farage.  Oh, and a tip for the next debate - best not to insult the audience if you want them to take your part.

Ed Miliband put in a workmanlike performance which seems to have gone down well generally.  He did, however, rule out any kind of deal with the SNP in the event of a hung parliament.  Smooth move Mr Miliband.  He has effectively said that he would rather see the Tories in power than have anything to do with the SNP, who will not do any kind of deal with the Tories.  Somehow I don't think that's the impression he wanted to give at this stage.  Also an FYI to the many challenged newspaper editors - the SNP are not offering a coalition with Labour.

Similarly Trident was not a winner for him.  He may be a fan of stick-on hairy chest wigs, but many, many people see it for what it is - a very expensive white elephant.

Meanwhile David Cameron did not take part in the debate, being busy spending 10 minutes in Scotland to launch the Scottish Conservative manifesto.  Mr Cameron managed to avoid contact with any of the proles while here, which merely reinforced people's view of him as remote and out of touch with normal people.  Compare and contrast with Nicola Sturgeon, who regularly meets ordinary people, as for example at the Bairns Not Bombs rally in Glasgow last weekend.

Nicola Sturgeon again came out as the winner of the debate according to the post-match polls.  Her performance was assured and showed that the SNP are not simply a one-issue party but have ideas to benefit the whole of the UK.  Again there are people wishing that they could vote for the SNP outwith Scotland, which is the kind of endorsement many politicians would sell their grannies to have.

So, in summary, a much better debate than the previous ones (which I found literally unbearable to listen to).  Probably not Mr Miliband's finest hour, but at least he had the advantage of being there, unlike Mr Cameron.

I think my sides have split

This morning the Guardian has an 'exclusive' interview with Nick Clegg, outlining why he thinks his party is the only possible choice for a coalition and giving some details of the headline policies from his manifesto. His case, such as it is, is that the SNP and Ukip are parties of grievance, whereas his party is one of (and I am not making this up) conscience.  To borrow a quote from Blackadder, 'I thank God I wore my corset, because I think my sides have split.'

Mr Clegg apparently believes that no-one noticed the wholesale ditching of Liberal Democrat principles in the current coalition, and seems to believe that they have acted as some sort of brake on the worst of Tory excesses.  Given the current state of the UK under the coalition austerity, one can only imagine some sort of futuristic dystopia would have been the result otherwise, with freezing wastelands and dire poverty in ghettos.  Oh wait...

Mr Clegg then goes on to outline 'five manifesto pledges that will have “a near religious status” for his party when it comes to negotiating any coalition deal.'  These include spending on education which will rise in line with pupil numbers rather than inflation, 8bn more on health and equal status for mental health, increasing the personal tax allowance to £12,500 a year, a balanced current budget by 2017-18 and five green laws including a decarbonisation target for electricity

All of which sounds very nice, except for the fact that Mr Clegg has already demonstrated a willingness to drop his principles for a sniff of power faster than a penniless whore their drawers when the fleet comes into port.  Indeed he is basically touting for business by implying that he would be happy to support either Labour or Tory depending on the deal they would be prepared to offer in return for coalition support.

Vote Liberal Democrat - the party of negotiable affections.